Totalitarian UK Parliament Goes FULL STALIN On Russell Brand!
Forget evidence, trials, or the presumption of innocence: for the UK Parliament It's "sentence first—verdict afterwards." Culture Committee Chair Caroline Dinenage sent letters to every platform commentator Russell Brand has appeared on to demand that he not be allowed to earn money from his work. Even though he has not been charged, much less convicted of a crime! Also today: Jan 6th "insurgents" were crawling with Feds. Finally: NATO dam cracks with Poland saying "hasta la vista" to Ukraine.
Get your copy of Ron Paul's LATEST BOOK - "The Surreptitious Coup" - as our "thank you" for your tax-deductible donation to the Ron Paul Institute. For $50 or more get an unsigned soft cover copy. For a donation of $100 or more get a hand-signed soft cover copy. For a donation of $150 or more get a hand-signed HARDCOVER copy of Dr. Paul's new book. How to get the book? Do nothing but make your contribution. We'll take it from there. We'll send the book automatically. There is a limited time and there are limited quantities!
Make your contribution at: http://ronpaulinstitute.org/support/
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you today?
Doing well.
Good.
Well, excellent.
Upping at it.
We're doing better than poor Russell Brand today.
Yeah, I've heard about him, but I didn't know anything about him.
I don't keep up with some of the important news.
But it becomes important when I find out that because they have a beef or they don't like him, that the government's getting involved and telling him what he's allowed to say.
I wonder if they learned any of that from Americans.
It certainly couldn't have been anything we've ever done to limit speech and social media and this sort of thing.
But even too, you know, we've been interested in people who aren't American citizens like Assange, but we get involved by overstepping our bounds.
Now, Russell Brand, who's not an American citizen, not like he's British, but it's his principle.
It's contagious.
It's like a virus.
One people get away with it.
Sometimes they let the corporations do the dirty work and say, oh, this is private property.
You know, they pulled that on lockdown.
The corporations are doing this all on their own, which we knew was different.
So this is going after one individual, and they have a beef with him.
And the U.S. Parliament got involved.
An important person, I guess.
U.K. Parliament sends letters to social media platforms demanding demonetization of Russell Brand.
Does that mean take away his income, try to hurt him?
Well, that should be illegal.
That's terrible.
But to me, the big principle is controlling property, controlling people, and personal liberty is abused.
And this is a form of enslavement because it's a technical thing.
But whether it's the military draft or the IRS or whatever, and in this case, it's the government coming in and saying, we can control your income.
You control a person's income.
You're very, very destructive, not only to a person's liberty, you're very destructive to the economic well-being of potentially everybody.
Yeah.
Well, it started with these allegations.
Now, let's go ahead and start.
This is the Guardian's piece on how it started.
YouTube suspends Russell Brand's revenues from his channel.
That's how it started.
And what's it all about?
Russell Brand is a pretty astute social commentator.
He's very funny, but very smart, and he has a massive, massive following.
Go to the next one, and here's how it started.
YouTube has suspended Russell Brand's ability to earn money on the platform after allegations of rape and sexual assault in a massive hit to his finances.
YouTube said it suspended his channel from their partner program after allegations against him.
And go to the next one.
And we can say, the 48-year-old comedian and actor has been accused of rape, assault, and emotional abuse between 2006 and 2013 when he was at the height of his fame working for the BBC, Channel 4, and starring in Hollywood Films.
He denies the allegations, saying his relationships were all consensual.
The Metropolitan Politan Police said on Monday they had received an allegation of sexual assault in Soho, London in 2003.
The force added that as yet no investigation has been launched.
And I highlighted that, Dr. Paul, because it's important.
The police, not only has he not been convicted, no longer has he, not only has he not been charged, they have not even investigated an allegation from 2003 about him, yet YouTube started out by canceling everything.
And I read another article looking into how much he makes off his YouTube, a million dollars a year.
So they basically snatched a million dollars off of accusations.
You could say, okay, well, YouTube is private.
They don't want someone with bad behavior off screen on their platform.
That is one thing.
But as you started the show pointing out, Dr. Paul, that's not really what's going on.
What's going on is the UK government pressuring, and we have the details later, pressuring these companies.
You need to demonetize this guy.
You need to demonetize this guy.
You know, there's a big mixture going on and has been going on, especially since COVID.
And that is the mixture of corporations and government.
And this is another example of this.
So the people who are anxious to silence Brand are the people who fall more in the category of corporatism and fascism.
But they're the ones, they're the same group that if they don't like you, all of a sudden they charge you with the crimes they're doing.
That's been going on for so long.
And that is what is really disgusting.
But this has to be a very serious thing, especially since it does move along.
One thing that I thought might be a positive, I've been looking, the fact that a lot of people have been very concerned about what's happening.
And hopefully they're going to get the right information rather than saying, oh, okay, the government says this is the case.
We have to quit supporting this guy.
But hopefully the people are reacting a little quicker than they did, say, after all the abuse, because using COVID and the safety of everybody, taking shots and masks and all that stuff, it had a more emotional appeal.
Maybe there's a little bit less here.
Maybe there's more knowledge here.
And hopefully there will be a resistance.
But there is no easy waving the wand now.
Are they going to back off and say, yeah, we made a mistake.
We shouldn't have sent those letters out and we're sorry.
Yeah, yeah.
I don't know that we're going to see that.
But let's go to now where YouTube and canceling him on YouTube, taking a million bucks out of his pocket a year.
We don't make that much, do we, on YouTube?
Not quite.
We're working on it.
Got to take a few zeros.
We're working on it.
But anyway, here's a post-millennial, and here's the article that they put out.
As you said earlier, Dr. Paul, UK Parliament sends letters to social media platforms demanding demonetization of Russell Brand.
So this is no longer, you can't even, there's not even a cover of it being a private company saying, hey, we don't like this guy.
He looks like he's got some bad behavior 10, 15, 20 years ago.
That's a whole other issue.
But let's look at a couple of these letters, Dr. Paul, because it is as creepy as you might imagine.
I mean, people in the UK, I don't know how they stand this.
I really don't.
And this is sent by the committee chairman of the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee of the House of Commons.
And here she is writing to Facebook saying, I'm writing concerning the serious allegations regarding Russell Brand in the context of his having 5.9 million followers on Facebook.
And she goes on, we would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr. Brand monetizes his content.
And if so, we would like to know whether Facebook intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr. Brand's ability to earn money on the platform.
So she's actually going.
This is the chairman of the committee.
Scroll down a little bit.
What's her name again?
It's Caroline.
No, go the other way if you can.
Yeah, here she is.
Caroline Diniage.
She's the chairman of the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee.
So she's writing YouTube saying, hey, she's writing to Facebook saying, hey, YouTube canceled him.
Are you guys going to do it or not?
And go to the next one.
Here she is writing to Twitter saying, hey, Twitter, are you going to cancel him?
We'd be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr. Brand monetizes his content on Twitter or X.
So you'd rather know if you intend to join YouTube, given Elon Musk's response to Mr. Brand's tweet regarding the allegations where he wrote, of course, they don't like competition.
We are also keen to understand whether Musk has personally intervened in any decisions.
So on and on it goes.
This woman is going crazy.
I'll go to the next one really quick.
I'm sorry, Dr. Paul, I don't want to drag this out.
But here she is.
Who is this now?
If you scroll down a little.
Now, here she is writing to TikTok.
Hey, is Russell Brand on TikTok?
You've got to cancel him on TikTok.
Are you going to be like YouTube and be good?
Or are you going to defy us, the UK Parliament, and not take away his money?
And on and on and on and on she went.
Yeah, they want to grab the moral high ground.
You know, they're holier than thou.
And, you know, we don't know exactly what his personal life is all about.
But it is the point as if they're angels and they're pointing out that he did such and such.
And therefore, that is one of the reasons.
So it's sort of a personal moral thing that they're grabbing at.
And also, you know, the sexual thing like that, some illegal things that they're claiming.
So they're doing this.
There's nothing very objective to it.
You already pointed out.
Did they give them a chance to have a trial or a question answered?
So, you know, it's a sentiment that's going on.
And I always wish we could help reverse this trend.
And as bad as it is, if it could be stopped where we are now and somehow or another back away, it might not ever get as bad as the nonsense going on with COVID.
But even the COVID people, they're trying to restir up all their mess again.
So it's sort of incestuous on what they do.
And they never want to give up because they have a sense that we're right and you're wrong and we're going to prove it and we're going to punish you because we're the boss and we are the supporters and the guardians of truth.
And you guys, you know, look at how they have no respect for, you know, their sense of morality.
So we have to punish him.
And so it's a collective punishment that they're going to do.
But what it might lead to, you know, over the years, you know, whether it's communism started in the 19th century and 20th century, how it spread and became, you know, something that was practically universal.
But it finally failed for economic reasons.
But still, the idea of authoritarianism.
That's why I like the broader term of authoritarianism because it includes all of that.
It includes a system that is opposite to voluntarism and people taking care of themselves.
You know, it's interesting that you mentioned the COVID because one of the things about Russell Brand, if you watch his program, and I have a couple times, I don't watch it regularly, I just don't have time, but he is consistently challenging big pharma.
Challenging Big Pharma Critically00:04:16
He's challenging the shot.
He's saying a lot of very critical things.
He's very, very critical of the lockdowns and the shutdowns.
He's also very critical of the military-industrial complex.
He's very critical of the warfare state.
So all of these things are touched on.
So I suspect that this whole sexual thing is a pretext because what they want him to do is shut up about all this stuff, shut up about big pharma, shut up about COVID lockdowns.
Because like you said, they want to do it again.
So they dig back 20 years into the past and find out that he's suspected of being rude or worse.
He may have done it, which is horrible if he did.
There's no question it's possible.
But going back 20 years, what they really want is to shut him up about this stuff.
You know, they want a new approach to politics and they're seeking a way to represent a broad spectrum.
Maybe Brand could get together with RFK.
Yeah, they may have, I think.
I think he's been on his show, if I'm not mistaken.
But that would be it.
The one thing that would, well, I don't know what Brand's position is on free markets.
He might be a free market person.
He's changed a lot.
Yeah, I mean, I don't know everything about him, but he's changed a lot over the past couple of years.
So he's a very interesting guy.
But we cannot leave this without a good news ending because everyone's trying to cancel him.
Put on the next one.
So this lady is going haywire.
This lady is a kook, this chairman of the parliament, right?
She's a kook.
She's writing to everyone.
Well, she went down the list and she wrote a little letter to Rumble, to Chris Pavlovsky, the CEO of Rumble, and she said the same thing.
I'm writing about serious allegations regarding Russell Brand.
Blah, We'd be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr. Brand is able to monetize his content, including his videos relating to the serious accusations against him.
We'd like to know whether Rumble intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr. Brand's ability to earn money.
And that's what they wrote to Chris Pavlovsky of Rumble.
And guess what?
Rumble did something a little different.
Do this next one.
Oh, now we're way too big.
Rumble tweeted this or posted this on X. Rumble's response to the UK Parliament's letter.
This is Chris Pavlovsky responding to this psycho-Stalinite in the UK Parliament.
He said, Today we received an extremely disturbing letter from a committee chair in the UK Parliament.
While Rumble obviously deplores sexual assault, rape, and other serious crimes and believes that both alleged victims and accused are entitled to full and serious investigation, it is vital to note that recent allegations against Russell Brand have nothing to do with content on Rumble's platform.
Just yesterday, YouTube announced that based solely on these media accusations, it was barring Mr. Brand from monetizing his video content.
Rumble stands for very different values.
We have devoted ourselves to the vital cause of defending a free internet, meaning an internet where no one arbitrarily dictates which ideas can or cannot be heard, or which citizens may or may not be entitled to a platform.
We regard it as deeply inappropriate and dangerous that the UK Parliament would attempt to control who is allowed to speak on our platform or to earn a living from doing so.
Singling out an individual and demanding his ban is even more disturbing given the absence of any connection between the allegations and his content on Rumble.
We don't agree with the behavior of many Rumble creators, but we refuse to penalize them for actions that have nothing to do with our platform.
He finishes out by saying, although it may be politically and socially easier for Rumble to join a cancel culture mob, doing so would be a violation of our company's values and mission.
We emphatically reject the UK Parliament's demands.
And right now, Dr. Paul, we are streaming on Rumble Live.
And I have to say, as Glenn Greenwald tweeted earlier, I don't think I've ever been as proud to be on Rumble as seeing that response.
That's wonderful.
And this sort of gives us a sense of satisfaction because we didn't get a phone call, and Rambert was a little bit smaller when they called.
FBI's Nervous Insurrection Informants00:07:07
Come on to our program.
And you told me about it.
I said, maybe.
And did we spend a day or two or a week?
And we really, really, you know, the words were good, but we live in an age where there's not a whole lot of credibility in law.
So I think, you know, right now it looks like we made a good choice and we should do whatever we can to encourage that.
Because that's what's going on here now, this person writing all these letters.
It's how can these people be credible?
And the challenge and the suggestion I have is when people hear this, and if it's not immediately you know the person and you believe they're exactly telling the truth, you ought to start checking the credibility of people.
What are their motives?
And that's when, you know, the higher up you are and the more control they have on this on the media and the propaganda, which is, you know, 90% of what politics is all about.
So credibility, and of course that is related to something like telling the truth, and that makes all the difference in the world.
So there's just hope that the emphasis and rumble type of resistance will continue to build.
And who knows what it will be like in a month from now.
I hope we can help reverse that ridiculous stuff.
Yeah, I think Rishi Sunak needs to call this chairwoman and say, cool it, Karen.
Invite her on the program.
Yeah.
Well, let's move on because we have a couple more things to cover today, and we've eaten up a lot of time.
But we're both passionate about this whole thing.
But this is something interesting that came out yesterday.
If we can go on to the next one.
And this shouldn't shock anyone who watches this show.
The FBI had so many paid informants in the January 6th riot, they lost track and had to perform an audit, says an ex-official, a former assistant FBI director, has told lawmakers that the agency had so many paid informants in the Capitol at the Capitol, on January 6th, that it lost track and had to perform an audit.
I mean, the story's coming out.
Well, the thought that came to my mind when I read this is, is this going to help expose who's telling the lies?
You know, so much of the lion just exists all over the place, all degrees of it.
And I guess I'm even surprised that they cut that many people.
We still don't know how many.
How many people were in there?
And the whole thing is, is they get away.
You know, I always say if they're guilty of something, they blame their competitors for doing it.
And this is closer to the insurrection.
This is government officials.
That's their insurrection.
And they were controlled.
The FBI was involved.
The whole mess, and yet they're still putting people in prison.
And there's still a lot of them locked up without due process of law.
I tell you what, this is a terrible, terrible thing.
And this hope continues to get exposed.
But I would put this down for this is positive in the sense there's more exposure of exactly what's going on because you think a year or two ago they would have said, oh, hold off, this might not be as bad as it looks because I think there were some people that got in there and they shouldn't have been, you know, take that position.
No, lying through their teeth.
And it continues.
And they were literally taking over the government because the Department of Justice, more and more people now are realizing the Department of Justice is not very much involved in justice.
That's the only thing they forgot.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, every day it looks more and more like this was a deep state covert op against Trump and Trump supporters because a lot of them were in jail.
And I wanted to put up Massey's great, great interrogation of the Attorney General yesterday, but we just don't have enough time.
But you can find it on former Twitter NowX.
That was a kill.
You said you watched part of it too.
He was on fire.
He was so good.
And he got Garland to say some things under oath.
He said, I think you just perjured yourself.
And Garland, he was like, This, do you see him?
He was nervous.
Yeah, he was nervous.
He was nervous.
And was stuck in that cookie jar.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Well, let's move ahead just to not the next one, but the next one, because we need to move on.
Yeah, there we go.
So here's from the same article.
They say that the FedFest was so overwhelming, the Washington Field Office had to ask FBI headquarters to do a poll or put out something to people saying were there any confidential human sources involved in order to figure out the scale of the agency's spying and whatnot at the event, according to Dantuano, who was the former assistant FDI, FBI director, whatever we said.
So we started getting responses back from FBI headquarters, which he said helped identify which field offices had confidential informants.
One paid informant from Kansas City Field Office was at the Capitol as the crowd surged inside and allegedly was in communication with his FBI handler.
While they were in the crowd, I think they were going in, according to the former Bureau of Brass.
So they had so many people in there, they didn't know who was who.
When they were questioning this, the person that was supposed to go in and find out about how many there were, they found out the individual came back and said, they would only say there was a handful.
Like, that hand was too handy.
And what were they saying?
You know, because that's what Massey was talking to Garland about.
You know, this Ray Epps guy, you finally indicted him.
He's on tape so many times saying, let's go in, let's reach the Capitol.
We've got to go in.
We've got to go in.
Pushing people and pushing people.
He finally got indicted yesterday on a misdemeanor.
And Massey, in a very aggressive way, inappropriately aggressive, you are putting grandmas in prison for 20 years for taking photos there.
You're putting people in prison forever for simply not even being there.
And here, Ray Epps, who's on tape saying, let's go in, you're only not even a slap on the wrist.
You know, the people the government and the FBI gathers up to go in, they don't call them spies.
And it's imply, oh, they get a badge.
They can be identified.
Most people can see it and they know about it, but they have trouble counting them because there are so many.
But they're not controlled because they're called informants.
And I bet there's zero liability for them.
Because if they come in and they've caused this trouble and harm and deception, and you want to sue one of them, there's no way they're going to let you know who did what because they can't even count them.
You know, this is this is a, yes, January 6th is a perfect example of anarchy and the breakdown of law and order and insurrection.
About Face: NATO's Shift on Ukraine00:07:32
But they got the sides mixed up.
Exactly.
That's exactly it.
And, you know, plus these informants, they'll get him on a weapons charge or something and say, hey, we're going to throw the book at you, but we've got a little deal we'll make.
If you go undercover and pretend to be an insurgent, you'll get off the books.
That brings up the subject of, you know, the president's son is being charged.
You know, he broke the crime, and we have to treat him like everybody else.
But what are they charging him on?
On the only issue that he was he constitutionally protected, which to buy a gun.
Yeah, exactly.
But all the other stuff will bury him.
That'll make the media happy.
The liberal media happy.
Oh, well, at least they're making a point.
He shouldn't have bought that gun.
Well, the last thing we want to do, and we probably could do a whole show on this because it is important, but it's the beginning, I think, of a dam-breaking.
If you can put that next one up, this is from Zero Heads as well.
It's all over, though.
NATO fractures.
In a U-turn, Poland announces it will no longer arm Ukraine.
This is a long story, and it's too long to go into right now.
But, you know, Poland was the biggest backer of Project Ukraine, of this whole idea of proxy war with Russia through Ukraine.
They were the biggest on pushing for weapons to go in Ukraine, and now they've had an about face.
They've turned and they said no more weapons.
Poland will no longer arm Ukraine to focus on its own defense.
The Prime Minister Morviecki announced just hours after Warsaw, summoned Ukraine's ambassador related to a fresh war of words.
They're having a little bit of a battle because Ukraine is dumping a bunch of grain into Poland and the rest of Central and Eastern Europe, and it's depressing the prices, and the local farmers are not too happy about it at all.
And Poland, if you can put the next one on, is facing parliamentary elections on the 15th of next month.
And this is a big problem because all of a sudden, the Law and Justice Party of the ruling party is facing some serious challenges, Dr. Paul, because they have destroyed Poland's economy.
They have ruined its relations with Russia and elsewhere.
They have completely gotten rid of their whole stock of weapons.
And they've plunged them into, and they're full of chock full of refugees.
And the people are saying, we have had enough.
And so I think the silver lining here is the people are speaking, as you like to say, they're waking up and they're demanding a change in policy, and the government has to respond.
You know, most wars end with economic factors being very involved.
A lot of wars are started for economic factors.
And obviously, Poland thought it was in their political interest and the pressure.
Oh, yeah, NATO, they're powerful, they're going to protect us from the Russians and this sort of thing.
They had to believe that it was going to be to their economic and political benefit.
Now, things are changing a little bit.
They're economically hurt, and the politics of it all are getting pretty messy, and they're losing control just like the Ukrainians.
I sort of assume Ukraine doesn't exist.
It's just been so used by others, and yet they don't even know it.
And they have people that go on.
They still come hat in hand here, and they think that Congress is going to roll over, but it looks like there's opposition being built in the Congress, and that's great.
But to me, the best thing of all this coming on is people have become less supportive of NATO.
NATO is not something that is good for our national security.
It's very harmful, very expensive, always looking for trouble and delaying the inevitable.
If the market were to get involved in correcting our problems, it could happen.
It could happen rather smoothly.
But if you always build on more power and control and more spending and more printing of money, you know, it becomes more and more difficult to correct.
But people, they have to wake up first and say, you know, our interests aren't being served by this.
And we're sick and tired of it, and we're not going to play this game anymore.
But they will not be allowed to go quietly.
There'll be more economic sanctions.
And this is another issue that, you know, economics plays a large part in activating the people because, you know, as soon as they say, oh, you know, they had floods there and they had boycotts and all this, and they think that international government is going to come in and help.
Well, maybe they're waking up and finding out they're the problem.
Yeah.
Well, this could not have happened at a worse time for Zelensky because he's in town right now, not here in Lake Jackson.
That would be funny.
But he's in D.C. right now begging for money.
So literally the night before he gets in TC with his hat in hand, Poland says, we're out of it.
Project Ukraine, cancel our membership.
We don't want to be part of it.
So that's going to be terrible for him because it takes a lot of the wind out of the sails.
But Slovakia is next.
They have elections coming up as well.
And Robert Fizzo, who is the opposition party leader, has been very vocal in opposition to Project Ukraine.
He's very skeptical about destroying his country's economy.
You have Hungary, who never started.
They said, we do not want to be involved at all in this war.
We refuse to allow the shipment of weapons to our territory.
So they're out.
So you're basically going to have poor old Olaf Schultz from Germany in a deindustrialized country with third world conditions sitting there saying, what's happened?
What's happened to us?
So I think, you know, the dam is starting to break.
And I think it's the beginning of the end of Project Ukraine.
And we have to work harder than ever to follow up the information and suggestion our founders had was, you know, you should trade and be friends with people.
You're most likely to fight with them.
And we did a bit of that.
And I think when we have, it's better off for the whole world.
You know, and this whole principle of non-intervention means that you allow more activity without guns.
You don't march across borders and you don't have international orders that, you know, whether it's NATO or IMF or UN or World Bank, all these kind of things that are going to dictate.
And then the politicians get in control and the international bankers get into control.
And all of a sudden, you don't have a marketplace.
And this is what has gone on.
And I tell you what, a lot of people are starting to realize, hopefully, that internationalism is not the way to go.
I mean, not the authoritarian.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, I'm going to close out.
We don't put a lot of candid shots from our luxurious headquarters in sunny downtown Lake Jackson.
But let's put this next one up because I do want to talk.
You're going to be mad at me.
But this is Dr. Paul signing his book for our generous donors who are participating in our fundraiser.
As I've mentioned this week thus far, we're offering these as a premium to those who support the Ron Paul Institute, which is home of the Ron Paul Liberty Report, and great things like the conference we just had in D.C., which was a massive success.
We have to keep things going and we need your support to do it.
So a tax-deductible contribution to the Ron Paul Institute of $50 will get you a paperback copy of the book.
Supporting Western Civilization00:01:55
A signed paper copy is yours for $100 as a gift.
And for a gift of $150 or more, a permanent hard copy forever book of Ron Paul's new book, which I think you're going to love, The Great Surreptitious Coup, Who Stole Western Civilization.
I'll add some details at the end of the program as to how you can make your contribution and get your book.
But we're busy.
We're getting copies signed and mailed off.
Very good.
I want to thank our viewers, as always, for tuning in today and being supportive.
I want to say that we do ask, and a lot of people have asked, you know, who stole Western civilizations?
What's happened to our republic?
And it's an important question, I thought.
Did my best to try to answer that and to get people to understand exactly what has happened to the momentum that Western civilization has given us over a couple centuries.
So, this to me is very important, but I do it with the thought that if we understand how something happened, that the progress of the 20th century has been reversed, and the issue of Western civilization has been stymied.
We can't correct it.
There are certain elements, I believe, that are very important.
And one of them is believing in a higher law and believing in natural law and believing that there is right and wrong.
And also to understand the enemy, and the enemy are people who become nihilistic when it comes to telling the truth and how governments should be limited in scope and not expand it.
I don't think those ideas are complex, but I think we have to get people to understand and care about it and try to figure it out if we ever expect to reverse this trend.